Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 versions of include/linux/ioport.h
From: Gene Heskett (gene.heskett_at_verizon.net)
Date: 08/06/03
- Previous message: Nick Piggin: "Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21"
- In reply to: Randy.Dunlap: "Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 versions of include/linux/ioport.h"
- Next in thread: Gene Heskett: "Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 versions of include/linux/ioport.h"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: "Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org> Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 20:50:07 -0400
On Tuesday 05 August 2003 10:57, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:41:08 -0400 Gene Heskett
<gene.heskett@verizon.net> wrote:
>| Greetings;
>|
>| In the 2.4 includes, find this in ioport.h
>| ----
>| /* Compatibility cruft */
>| #define check_region(start,n) __check_region(&ioport_resource,
>| (start), (n))
>| [snip]
>| extern int __check_region(struct resource *, unsigned long,
>| unsigned long);
>| ----
>| But in the 2.6 version, find this:
>| ----
>| /* Compatibility cruft */
>| [snip]
>| extern int __check_region(struct resource *, unsigned long,
>| unsigned long);
>| [snip]
>| static inline int __deprecated check_region(unsigned long s,
>| unsigned long n)
>| {
>| return __check_region(&ioport_resource, s, n);
>| }
>| ----
>| First, the define itself is missing in the 2.6 version.
>|
>| Many drivers seem to use this call, and in that which I'm trying
>| to build, the nforce and advansys modules use it. And while the
>| modules seem to build, they do not run properly.
>|
>| I cannot run 2.6.x for extended tests because of the advansys
>| breakage this causes. I also haven't even tried to run X because
>| of the nforce error reported when its built, the same error as
>| attacks the advansys code.
>|
>| Can I ask why this change was made, and is there a suitable
>| replacement call available that these drivers could use instead of
>| check_region(), as shown here in a snip from advansys.c?
>| ----
>| if (check_region(iop, ASC_IOADR_GAP) != 0) {
>| ...
>| if (check_region(iop_base, ASC_IOADR_GAP) != 0) {
>| ...
>|
>| Hopeing for some hints here.
>
>check_region() was racy. Use request_region() instead.
>
> if (!request_region(iop, ASC_IOADR_GAP, "advansys")) {
> ...
>
> if (!request_region(iop_base, ASC_IOADR, "advansys")) {
> ...
>
>Of course, if successful, this assigns the region to the driver,
>while check_region() didn't do this, so release_region() should be
>used as needed to return the resources.
Randy, look the attached patch over & see if its suitable. Its
against the driver in the 2.6.0-test2 archive, and was done from
within the drivers/scsi directory. Its working fine here, booting
and accessing my tape drive just fine with the advansys driver
incorporated into the kernel, or as a module. I didn't see any
memory leakage, but my test method isn't definitive.
If its suitable, pass it on to Linus. It will add one more card to
the NOT broken by 2.6 list.
-- Cheers, Gene AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M Athlon1600XP@1400mhz 512M 99.27% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly Yahoo.com attornies please note, additions to this message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2003 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- text/x-diff attachment: patch-advansys.c-for-2.6
- Previous message: Nick Piggin: "Re: Interactive Usage of 2.6.0.test1 worse than 2.4.21"
- In reply to: Randy.Dunlap: "Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 versions of include/linux/ioport.h"
- Next in thread: Gene Heskett: "Re: 2.4 vs 2.6 versions of include/linux/ioport.h"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
